Families of two men killed in a recent US military airstrike have filed a federal lawsuit against the US government. The lawsuit stems from a series of controversial boat strikes conducted by the military, which have been linked to Donald Trump’s administration’s aggressive tactics against perceived threats in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean Sea. The strikes have killed at least 117 people. This has rattled legal justifications for such moves and actions, their applicability and repercussions both under domestic and international law.
On October 14, a US military airstrike destroyed a small boat in the Caribbean Sea, killing four suspected drug traffickers. The attack regrettably took the lives of Chad Joseph and Samaroo. Their families, Lenore Burnley and Sallycar Korasingh, have initiated legal proceedings under admiralty law, citing the Alien Torts Act and the Death on the High Seas Act. This lawsuit is the first federal action of its kind since the military attacks began. It shines a light on the more pressing matter of accountability for these strikes.
The Trump administration has acknowledged at least 36 such attacks on US vessels. These steps are the latest illustration of its hawkish campaign against drug cartels and organized crime groups trafficking through those waters. Department of State and local officials assert that these operations are vital for the fight against narcoterrorism. They claim that the laws of war cover such fights.
In its statements, the U.S. government alleges that the targeted vessels were affiliated with transnational criminal organizations. Donald Trump publicly defended the airstrikes, stating, “Under my Standing Authorities as Commander-in-Chief, this morning, the Secretary of War ordered a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization (DTO).”
Legal experts have sounded the alarm over violations of domestic and international law resulting from such military operations. Jonathan Hafetz, a law professor, commented on the unprecedented nature of these strikes, stating, “This is uncharted water. Never before in the country’s history has the government asserted this type power.”
Critics have repeatedly asserted that the military’s actions constituted “unlawful killing.” Their argument is that if the US government had a reasonable suspicion that Joseph or Samaroo posed a threat, it should have pursued law enforcement alternatives before resorting to killing these men. Korasingh remarked, “If the US government believed Rishi had done anything wrong, it should have arrested, charged, and detained him, not murdered him.”
According to the complaint, such strikes amount to “premeditated and intentional killings” for which there is not even a colorable legal justification. Each of these allegations points to a deeply troubling trend toward military engagement without any regard for precedent legal process. To date, the Justice Department has not publicly released any such secret opinion that aligns with the government’s position. This endorsement only adds to the already complex and contradictory legal landscape surrounding military operations.
Even though these strikes claim to only be targeting criminal enterprises, many legal scholars will argue that these types of strikes violate the most basic legal precepts. Further, they contend that using military force to battle non-state actors is not legally supported. This drains the authority of the domestic judiciary and erodes the integrity of international human rights law.
That legal fight is playing out as we speak. It raises some important questions about military power and oversight in an increasingly remote style of warfare.